Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8992644" data-attributes="member: 82106">Go to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s recent 'granularity thread' <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/an-example-where-granular-resolution-based-on-setting-situation-didnt-work.697103/page-7#post-8992329" target="_blank">An example where granular resolution based on setting =&gt; situation didn't work</a> and explain to me how you adjudicate his RM situation without making up new rules, like actual procedural rules just like the ones that are in the published book. This is FUNDAMENTALLY different from simply making up fiction in Dungeon World, which is a PROCESS DESCRIBED BY the rules. Yes, players in any game can try to argue that feature/attribute X is going to give them a bonus to do Y. That doesn't change the facts laid out in my previous sentence! This is a true qualitative difference. I agree, you make stuff up in all RPGs, and there MUST logically thus be some sort of judgment exercised in deciding &quot;what am I going to say now?&quot; Again, that mere fact does not erase the differences between systems. I also don't understand your statement about D&amp;D and easier to make rules of the same shape... Assuming you DO make rules in, say Dungeon World, it is incredibly simple to do so, as the only kind you can really make are new moves (you could create entire new playbooks, but that's just basically a book full of moves). I mean, I guess you could add keywords? Its hard to imagine that new rules could be easier to fit in with what already exists than that!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8992644, member: 82106"] Go to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s recent 'granularity thread' [URL="https://www.enworld.org/threads/an-example-where-granular-resolution-based-on-setting-situation-didnt-work.697103/page-7#post-8992329"]An example where granular resolution based on setting => situation didn't work[/URL] and explain to me how you adjudicate his RM situation without making up new rules, like actual procedural rules just like the ones that are in the published book. This is FUNDAMENTALLY different from simply making up fiction in Dungeon World, which is a PROCESS DESCRIBED BY the rules. Yes, players in any game can try to argue that feature/attribute X is going to give them a bonus to do Y. That doesn't change the facts laid out in my previous sentence! This is a true qualitative difference. I agree, you make stuff up in all RPGs, and there MUST logically thus be some sort of judgment exercised in deciding "what am I going to say now?" Again, that mere fact does not erase the differences between systems. I also don't understand your statement about D&D and easier to make rules of the same shape... Assuming you DO make rules in, say Dungeon World, it is incredibly simple to do so, as the only kind you can really make are new moves (you could create entire new playbooks, but that's just basically a book full of moves). I mean, I guess you could add keywords? Its hard to imagine that new rules could be easier to fit in with what already exists than that! [/QUOTE]

Verification